and grant him peace—if he had summoned Abū Bakr, Umar, Uthmān, Talhah, al-Zubayr, Ibn Masūd, Ubayy ibn Kab, Muādh ibn Jabal, and others to the mutual imprecation, they would have been among those most responsive to his command, and the supplications of these and others would have been even more effective in securing an answer to the supplication. Yet Allah—Glorified is He—did not command him to take them [with him] (1), because that would not have accomplished the intended purpose. The purpose was for those people to bring those for whom they were naturally concerned (2), such as their sons, their women, and the men closest to them. If the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—had summoned people unrelated to him, they would likewise have brought unrelated people. The divine curse falling upon such outsiders would not have distressed them as severely as its falling upon their closest relatives, for human beings naturally fear for those closest to them (3) in a way they do not fear for outsiders. Thus, the command was for the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—to summon his relatives and for those people to summon theirs.

When two parties face one another, each says to the other:

“Place your sons and women in our hands as pledges.”

Had either party pledged an unrelated person, the other side would not have accepted it. Likewise, had the Prophet summoned outsiders, those opposing him would not have been satisfied. Nor does it follow that a man’s family must be superior in Allah’s sight simply because he sets them against someone who confronts him with his own family. It has therefore become clear that the verse contains no evidence whatsoever for the Rāfidī’s contention. But he and those like him are among those whose hearts harbor deviation, like the Christians who cling to ambiguous expressions and abandon explicit texts. Then there is his disparagement (4) of the best of the Muslim community on the basis of his false allegation,